[EM] non-binding direct democracy system

[James Green-Armytage]

	This is the continuation of an exchange between myself (James), and Mr.
Prabhakar. The only other comment I'm aware of has come from Ms. Dotan.
Does anyone else want to jump in? Is there anyone on the list who has an
opinion on the direct democracy versus representative democracy question? 

>However, my feeling was that your proposal didn't contain 
>_any_ strong motivation besides a rather vague belief in the value of 
>direct democracy. 

	There's nothing vague about it. I believe that people in a democracy
should have the ability to express themselves directly, rather than only
through the choice of elected representatives, a filter which simplifies
and distorts their opinions on the issues. The denial of this ability is
not only insulting and patronizing, it is destructive. It solidifies the
decision-making power of the elite class while erasing nuance from the
popular will and subsuming it in partisan hatred.

> You don't need tested evidence, but you at least 
>need a coherent argument -why- you think your system improves upon the 
>alternatives.  

	I have already provided such arguments. I will recap some and provide
another one below.
>
>As  I said, the referenda system in California appears to suffer from 
>the same systemic bipolarization and demagoguery as the regular 
>election process, and our assemblies.   In the absence of centrist, 
>majority-consensus-building leaders, I don't see any particular benefit 
>to direct democracy.  

	I suggest that the single-winner methods that might give us centrist
leaders, specifically Condorcet-efficient methods, would also have the
potential to give us centrist, compromise solutions to social problems.

For example, let's say that there was a vote on marijuana, where the
options are as follows
1. make marijuana totally legal
2. reduce penalties for marijuana use to confiscation and fines
3. maintain current penalties for marijuana use
and the votes are cast as follows:

33%: legalize > decrease > maintain	
16%: reduce > legalize > maintain
16%: reduce > maintain > legalize
35%: maintain > decrease > legalize

	In light of these votes, we can predict that a single up-down vote on
legalizing marijuana would fail. Also, use of plurality or IRV to tally
votes would also result in the status quo. A Condorcet tally, however,
picks the compromise solution when there is one, the reduced penalty
option above.
	To my knowledge there aren't any referenda systems which incorporate
Condorcet tallies for multiple-option votes. So I'm saying that there
should be. And I'm saying that they should incorporate a proxy system for
reasons already specified, viz. because it avoids the forced choice
between effectively discriminatory low turnout and votes that lack
knowledge of the issue. And I'm saying that they should be on the federal
level in the U.S. because the federal govenment has a lot of power and a
much higher profile than local and state. And I'm saying that they should
be non-binding to begin with because they will be less threatening and
chaotic that way. This is my proposal in a small nutshell, along with the
fact that I added various logistical problem-solving elements on the way
to deal with security, etc. None of this seems insipid to me.
	The marijuana vote could be even more detailed than it is above if you
lay more options down that roughly fall along a given spectrum, that is a
spectrum from light or absent penalties to harsh penalties. A Condorcet
method is likely to pick the median even with a large number of options,
as long as they are arrayed accross a single spectrum. 
	Just to be redundant, I can make a similar with the gay marriage issue.
Let's say that there are three options on the ballot in a given state:
1. Legalize gay marriage
2. Allow civil unions between same-sex couples
3. Allow neither civil unions or gay marriage
and the votes are cast as follows:

35: marriage > civil > neither
6: civil > marriage > neither
19: civil > neither > marriage
40: neither > civil > marriage
	Again, a single up-down vote on gay marriages would fail. Use of
plurality or IRV would result in the 'neither' option. Condorcet reveals
the civil unions to be a majority-supported compromise. I think that
Condorcet is by far the best bet if you want centrist, non-polarized
results, provided of course that a sufficient compromise option exists on
the ballot.

>Making the referenda 
>non-binding doesn't address this concern, as far as I can tell; all it 
>would do is decrease voter interest and turnout, making it little 
>different than an opinion poll.    Which our current leaders slavishly 
>listen to -- and manipulate -- already.  So, what's the point?

	Yes, politics now are highly driven by opinion polls and focus groups. My
problem is that I don't trust those things, and I don't think that they
are an appropriate engine for democracy. Polls have large margins of
error, and have samples sizes which only incorporate an infinitessimal
fraction of the real population. Focus groups take place behind closed
doors, routinely have unpublished results, and in general do nothing to
further political discourse. 
	This is why I want a nonbinding DD system. I want the popular will to
come through as a result of direct political action in broad daylight
rather than through the doubtful conduits above. I want a system which
engages people to get involved, to discuss, and to act, one which includes
everyone who cares about an issue, rather than just a few people who are
randomly selected by a network news agency, or who strike a focus group as
being representative of swing voters.

James